Privacy and Injunctions - Evidence - Parliament

Press Complaints Commission, Ofcom, and Authority for Television on Demand—Oral
evidence (QQ 754–818)
Q778 Lord Gold: I should like to ask a question about how the PCC works. We
had complaints—I think you were here earlier—that the members of the board are editors
of newspapers. Do they allow you as director just to get on with it, or do they make
decisions on balance?
Steven Abell: That is a good point and it is worth clarifying. There are 17 members
of the Commission, of whom 10 are public members independently appointed with no
connection with the newspaper industry, and seven are editors. No editor is involved in any
judgment about his paper, a sister paper or a related paper. They physically leave the room
and do not have any say in the matter, or even get any information about it. The office, of
which I am the head, prepares the papers and drafts for them to debate and consider, but
ultimately it reflects the will of the Commission in regard to decisions. Decisions are taken
corporately by the Press Complaints Commission, which is a body with 10 lay members and
seven editors.
Q779 Mr Bradshaw: Who appoints those 10 lay members?
Steven Abell: It is a nominations committee of the Press Complaints Commission.
There are three lay members with an independent assessor who comes in to monitor the
process.
Q780 Mr Bradshaw: Could you send us the CVs of the 10 lay members?
Steven Abell: It is clearly set out on our website.
Q781 Ms Stuart: In relation to the PCC specifically, to what extent are you
hampered by the fact that not all newspapers subscribe to it? I want to quote part of a
written submission from Private Eye: “The short answer to why Private Eye has not subscribed
to the PCC is that it has not made sense for it to do so. The PCC has lacked independence
from the newspaper industry; Private Eye has not needed the PCC, either to set editorial
standards or to help us resolve complaints”. What do you say in response to that?
Steven Abell: I think the question of whether newspapers are members is a very
significant one. On the other side, the converged world that we are entering into suggests
to me that there is a universality of people who act in the manner of newspapers, ie they
produce content that people read. It is now a very broad church that covers people
tweeting, bloggers, Facebook and all sorts of other things. The notion of absolute
universality is, I think, deeply problematic. On the flip side, should national newspapers in
particular be members of the system, either the PCC, or a reformed body? Absolutely. I
think it causes a problem. The solution to that is to incentivise membership. Once people
become members they are locked in via a compact or contract for a significant period. I
think all of this is answerable. At the moment, the voluntary nature of the PCC gives it
certain other powers, for example pre-publication work, because people co-operate with
that. That is quite successful. The voluntary aspect has some benefits, but it has that serious
flaw within it. I think the answer to that question is a system that is slightly better
incentivised and locks in people.
954